DOJ Argues International Treaty Can Trump the Constitution

[Jeff]

Well we all knew it was coming, Obama couldn't get gun control; passed and was cool about it because he knew he was going to have this as a back up.




Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.
"The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.
"The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-criticizes-doj-for-arguing-international-treaty-can-trump-the-constitution/article/2538205

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well we all knew it was coming, Obama couldn't get gun control; passed and was cool about it because he knew he was going to have this as a back up.





http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-criticizes-doj-for-arguing-international-treaty-can-trump-the-constitution/article/2538205 I told everybody they were heading down this path!! Going to try to trump the Constitution by way of signing International treaties. Clearly unconstitutional as that allows for destruction of the Constitution by a pact made with foreign entities by any one single Congress and President!! This is clearly grounds to bring impeachment charges !! How much more GD treason does this lying bastard have to engage in before America wakes the hell up!!! PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ONE OF HIS SWORN RESPONSIBILITIES YET HE IS HELPING DESTROY IT. HOW THE FFING HELL CAN THAT NOT BE DELIBERATE DERELICTION OF DUTY?????????????How the hell can it not be treason when he tries by any means possible to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights? Its his job to protect those rights!!!!!! Yet he does just the opposite . Are Americans this damn stupid as to not see his true agenda!?? --Tyr

[revelarts]

they've been doing that in various areas for the past 70 years.
Many U.S.S.C. nominees have been asked about that upon confirmation.
Many leftist and some R congress folk have/are trying to use treaties to get unpopular rules put on the U.S..

Like the "commerce clause" the "treaties... shall be the supreme law of the land" clause has/is being used as an end run on the Bill of Rights. At least when they care about using the Constitution to justify their law making.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[glockmail]

Those treaties put restraints on the Government, not the People.

[revelarts]

Those treaties put restraints on the Government, not the People.

Not always
treaties like the Law of the seas treaty (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty) effects the mining bussiness.
and codex alimentarius (http://www.naturalnews.com/024128_CODEX_food_health.html) (the Food Code) would effect what herbs, vitamins and vegetables it would be deemed legal for us to eat.

Agenda 21 isn't even a treaty, but an agreement or something, and they've been rolling that out like it's the law of the land.

this UN treaty stuff is no joke.
But treaties Shouldn't trump the constitution according to many legal schlars





...Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power

A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties “are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.”332 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.333 It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional,334 although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations.335 In fact, there would be little argument with regard to the general point were it not for certain dicta in Justice Holmes’ opinion in Missouri v. Holland.336 “Acts of Congress,” he said, “are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention.” Although he immediately followed this passage with a cautionary “[w]e do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power . . . ,”337 the Justice’s language and the holding by which it appeared that the reserved rights of the States could be invaded through the treaty power led in the 1950s to an abortive effort to amend the Constitution to restrict the treaty power.338
332 Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/190/case.html), 194 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/190/case.html#194) (1888).
333 “The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/635/case.html), 656 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/635/case.html#656) (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/258/case.html), 267 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/258/case.html#267) (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html), 700 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html#700) (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/332/case.html), 341 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/332/case.html#341) (1924).
334 1 W. Willoughby, supra, at 561; L. Henkin, supra, at 137. In Power Authority of New York v. FPC, 247 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1957), a reservation attached by the Senate to a 1950 treaty with Canada was held invalid. The court observed that the reservation was properly not a part of the treaty but that if it were it would still be void as an attempt to circumvent constitutional procedures for enacting amendments to existing federal laws. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment on mootness grounds. 355 U.S. 64 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/355/64/case.html) (1957). In United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1953), an executive agreement with Canada was held void as conflicting with existing legislation. The Supreme Court affirmed on nonconstitutional grounds. 348 U.S. 296 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/296/case.html) (1955).
335 Cf. City of New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/35/662/case.html) (1836); Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/223/317/case.html) (1912).
336 252 U.S. 416 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/case.html) (1920).
337 252 U.S. at 433. Subsequently, he also observed: “The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution.” Id.
338 The attempt, the so-called “Bricker Amendment,” was aimed at the expansion into reserved state powers through treaties as well as executive agreements. The key provision read: “A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.” S.J. Res. 43, 82d Congress, 1st Sess. (1953), § 2. See also S.J. Res. 1, 84th Congress, 1st Sess. (1955), § 2. Extensive hearings developed the issues thoroughly but not always clearly. Hearings on S.J. Res. 130: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 82d Congress, 2d Sess. (1952). Hearings on S.J. Res. 1 & 43: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 83d Congress, 1st Sess. (1953); Hearings on S.J. Res. 1: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 84th Congress, 1st Sess. (1955). See L. Henkin, supra, at 383-85.
...

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html



but clear reading of the constitution hasn't been stopping lawmakers or presidents from doing much of anything lately.

[glockmail]

Not always
treaties like the Law of the seas treaty (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty) effects the mining bussiness.
and codex alimentarius (http://www.naturalnews.com/024128_CODEX_food_health.html) (the Food Code) would effect what herbs, vitamins and vegetables it would be deemed legal for us to eat.

Agenda 21 isn't even a treaty, but an agreement or something, and they've been rolling that out like it's the law of the land.

this UN treaty stuff is no joke.
But treaties Shouldn't trump the constitution according to many legal schlars






but clear reading of the constitution hasn't been stopping lawmakers or presidents from doing much of anything lately.

Politicians and judges routinely ignore the Constitution; there is no doubt about that. Until we aggressively impeach these pieces of crap that won't change.

You have a point with the law of the sea outside whatever distance from shore jurisdiction is agreed upon by international agreements. But within the jurisdictional boundaries they can all pound sand.

With regards to pollution issues there may be some legal standing. If you're stinking up the neighborhood with your activities that puts a limit on the freedom that you have within your borders.

Regarding international food laws, I see no legal basis unless US farmers and manufacturers are exporting. And of course to reach global markets US corporations may adopt those standards as policy anyway, sort of like what California has done to the US auto industry.

[aboutime]

Everyone reading this, who is a U.S. Citizen should know...from the Get-Go. If you have ever been taught, or studied the U.S. Constitution.

"NOTHING.....trumps the Constitution". Because Holder, any Lawyer, or even Obama say such things, or try to convince Americans that such things are true.

We must remember. LIARS do not, and can not TRUMP the Constitution.

Only the SUPREMELY IGNORANT, and STUPID Americans will believe it because THEY ALSO VOTED FOR OBAMA.

[revelarts]

http://i43.tinypic.com/289wzut.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Protecting the Constitution is protecting the nation. Those seeking to destroy or replace it are by every logical definition enemies of this nation. Shouldn't we be asking if Obama is seeking that??????? The answer obvious IMHO.. Yet his primary job is protecting two things 1. this nation(its citizens) and 2. the Constitution as the two are the same thing.. he attacks both on a regular basis but because the media , the Congress and the now corrupted SCOTUS ignores this so do most Americans! I was taught differently back in the 60's. Happy to say my education came well before the lib/dems crashed the education system here ! A shocker to many but they used to teach pride in the nation, patriotism and love of the Constitution in school. Try that now and you'll get fired or jailed.. Schools are banning clothing that relays pride in the nation for Christ sakes!! Can not wear a T-shirt with the American flag on it or some illegal Mexican will get mad. All this liberal inspired insanity must be stopped or else we will have a civil war. I pray that we don't but if we do we should know who the damn real enemies are and deal accordingly otherwise just surrender and let it all go to hell. Which is what they want.. ff-them all. -Tyr